U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Today, 08:04 AM
 
13,311 posts, read 4,568,594 times
Reputation: 6521

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ringo1 View Post
No, this law says they don't. The state cannot force their electors to vote for the 'winner'.

One person could change the entire election based on their personal views.

Interesting.
Yeah it's ripe for bribery, collusion and all kinds of stuff IMO. You would think once you are chosen by your party you had to give the votes to their candidate if they won. This makes no sense to me. I thought this ruling was for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact that some states were trying to form. Interesting indeed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Today, 08:07 AM
 
39,797 posts, read 41,164,039 times
Reputation: 16483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713 View Post
What is the law that regulates this process now? Do you happen to know?

Whatever laws are passed need to be consistent with the US Constitution.

There is nothing in the Constitution that requires an elector to base their vote based on the popular vote in the state either. In this specific case an elector in CO cast his/her ballot for Kasich instead of Clinton and the state replaced them with someone that voted for Clinton because state law required them to cast their votes based on the winner of the popular vote. The ruling is they can't do that, why you would think this is good thing I'm not so sure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 08:12 AM
 
13,311 posts, read 4,568,594 times
Reputation: 6521
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
There is no law that requires an elector to base their vote based on the popular vote in the state either. In this specific case an elector cast his/her ballot for Kasich instead of Clinton and the state replaced them with someone that voted for Clinton. The ruling is they can't do that, why you would think this is good thing I'm not so sure.
Yeah I'm confused as hell about it too. It seems it's ripe for all kinds of fraud and abuse. You would have thought they would be ruling on the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact if anything. That is way more unconstitutional.

Quote:
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 09:59 AM
 
39,797 posts, read 41,164,039 times
Reputation: 16483
As far as I can tell this would nullify a pact like that or anything else. It would be up to the individual elector how they vote. I don't think any side should be cheering for this decision because it puts the outcome of an election into the hands of a very small amount of people. This will go to SCOTUS and hopefully they rule the other way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 10:07 AM
 
37,809 posts, read 16,367,633 times
Reputation: 8571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado Rambler View Post
God forbid that voters actually get to vote directly for the candidate of their choice. The electoral college plus gerrymandering are the only way that republican candidates can win elections these days.
" plus gerrymandering are the only way that republican candidates can win elections these days."
And how do you them the DEMS CONTROLLED THE HOUSE for 40 STRAIGHT YEARS and how they keep control of red sates?


The dems split my county 4 ways to GUARANTEE their dem won when the county started to become more republican then dem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 10:07 AM
 
13,311 posts, read 4,568,594 times
Reputation: 6521
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
As far as I can tell this would nullify a pact like that or anything else. It would be up to the individual elector how they vote. I don't think any side should be cheering for this decision because it puts the outcome of an election into the hands of a very small amount of people. This will go to SCOTUS and hopefully they rule the other way.
Exactly my thoughts on the matter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 10:24 AM
 
11,148 posts, read 4,149,392 times
Reputation: 5363
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenPineTree View Post
Just out of curiosity but currently most states have passed laws forcing electors to vote with the popular vote of that state. Now they don't have to? So Trump can win a state but the electors can vote for another candidate?
Technically, yes. If an elector does this, that elector is referred to as a "faithless elector". There have been a few along the way, but they are exceedingly rare.

For a very long time, the choosing of electors has been done by the state political parties. So if the Democrat presidential candidate wins in a state, then whoever the Democrats have appointed to be the electors get to participate in the electoral college process. Likewise, if the Republican presidential candidate wins in a state, then whoever the Republicans have appointed to be the electors get to participate in the electoral college process.

It is not clear to me if there are actual state laws directing this, or if it is just the customary practice. As astonishing as this may seem, it appears to me based on some research that I have just done to probably be the latter. But surely the expectation is that the electors will vote on behalf of the voters of their state. Or, why even bother to have an election?

The state legislatures are responsible for regulating this process, but they are limited by the requirements, the limitations and the intent of the US Constitution on this subject.

In any case, if the Democrat left tries to abuse this process any further, then surely the Supreme Court will have to step in and stop their attempts to effectively legislate into law their ability rig our national elections.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 10:28 AM
 
11,148 posts, read 4,149,392 times
Reputation: 5363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dbones View Post
Can you post a link to the information where the electors voting for the popular state vote came later? I can't see that as a workable system if they didn't. If that was the case then why even have the people vote and just leave it to the electors?
Here is a Wikipedia article about the electoral college that includes a lot of this information and also the history of the electoral college. Of course you can google "electoral college" and find a lot more on this topic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...ctoral_College
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 10:31 AM
 
11,148 posts, read 4,149,392 times
Reputation: 5363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
That is not what this lawsuit was in regard to, Colorado wanted electoral reps to follow the popular vote in their state and this one single democratic rep voted republican against the popular vote. I'm guessing this is an aberration but it does happen since the states can't control their vote at the national level. The OP wanted to make it into some national progressive conspiracy.
I think there are 14 states now that have passed laws like this. So it clearly appears to be a broad movement by Democrat left politicians to do this. Whether that constitutes a "Conspiracy" or not, I will leave that up to you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 10:35 AM
 
11,148 posts, read 4,149,392 times
Reputation: 5363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dbones View Post
Yeah it's ripe for bribery, collusion and all kinds of stuff IMO. You would think once you are chosen by your party you had to give the votes to their candidate if they won. This makes no sense to me. I thought this ruling was for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact that some states were trying to form. Interesting indeed.
I don't know if you recall the days after Trump was elected and before the electoral college actually confirmed his victory, but there was a good amount of discussion about how electors would hopefully abandon their duties to vote for Trump and just spontaneously vote for Hillary. For the good of the country, I guess.

These people are just plain evil. They really are.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top